Jobsinlaw.ca is Canada’s go-to legal career site. By matching employers and recruiters with legal professionals, www.jobsinlaw.ca provides a cost-effective recruitment solution. Law firms, in-house legal departments and public sector organizations across Canada can find lawyers, legal professionals or legal support staff at all levels of qualification with jobsinlaw.ca.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

Whether your matter is to do with criminal, family, employment, property, or immigration law, FindLaw.ca’s Lawyer Directory will help you connect with the right lawyers to help you with your legal issues.

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

Innovatio Awards celebrate in-house counsel, both individuals and teams, who have found ways to show leadership by becoming more efficient, innovative and creative in meeting the needs of their organizations within the Canadian legal markets

Presented by Lexpert, the prestigious Rising Stars Awards Gala honours winners from across Canada and welcomes law firm and in-house leaders and distinguished guests to celebrate and network with others who are at the top of the legal profession

The Canadian Dealmakers honour companies and individuals whose M&A transactions have significantly impacted their industry through innovation and growth; establishment of best practices; enhancement of customer needs and products; and creation of value

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

Anishinabek developing own child welfare laws

With one in 10 aboriginal children under the care of child welfare agencies in Canada, the Anishinabek Nation is developing its own laws in a bid to take over services for families in trouble from the province.

“The idea is to put in place something that is more culturally relevant to the communities,” says Tracey O’Donnell, legal counsel to the organization representing 42 First Nations in Ontario stretching from Sarnia to Thunder Bay to Ottawa.

Over the coming months, the Anishinabek Nation will be holding consultations across the province on what such a law should entail. The sessions began in Thunder Bay this month and will conclude in Toronto on Nov. 18 and 19.

Officials hope to a create a draft law that will go up for review and input by the 42 member nations next year with a view of getting approval by June. Then, it will be up to each community to implement its own version of the framework, says O’Donnell.

“First and foremost . . . the responsibility of taking care of our children rests with us,” says Patrick Madahbee, the grand council chief of the Anishinabek Nation.

“Removing kids from our communities is not the answer.”

Aboriginal communities have a long history of contact with provincial child welfare authorities, particularly since a 1965 agreement that gave Ontario the power to administer services for status Indians on reserve.

In the meantime, controversy has swirled over past practices that saw many aboriginal children end up with white parents, something native communities have since railed against as an injustice similar to that of residential schools.

“If one looks back historically at how Canadian society has dealt with aboriginal children, there have been huge mistakes that have resulted in lifelong harm,” says Nicholas Bala, an expert in family and children’s law at Queen’s University in Kingston.

As a result, he says, aboriginal communities have over the years taken back control of child welfare services by setting up their own agencies. In the Anishinabek case, the goal is to try to keep kids in troubled families within their own communities rather than sending them elsewhere.

Madahbee wants to see a greater focus on prevention, allowing parents accused of things like neglect to get help and counselling so their kids can stay with them.

It’s unclear how a new law would mesh with existing provincial legislation and agencies, however.

In part, the idea is to create a framework that would allow the Anishinabek member nations to create their own services. But extending that concept to the legal realm would be complicated, Bala points out.

In most cases, new aboriginal agencies established in places like Manitoba operate under provincial legal structures.

In one case, the Spallumcheen Indian Band in British Columbia has run its own system under a bylaw it passed in 1980, but so far that model has been the exception. Doing so required the approval of the federal government, something other First Nations that have attempted to set up their own systems haven’t secured.

Bala notes another issue is jurisdiction. O’Donnell says the Anishinabek Nation will be claiming child welfare is an area of inherent jurisdiction under the aboriginal right to self-government.

“The Anishinabek are First Nations and they have inherent jurisdiction over matters that are integral to the nation. There’s nothing more integral to any nation than its people.”

Professor Brad Morse, an expert in aboriginal law at the University of Ottawa, says in the absence of a self-government agreement, the Anishinabek Nation would have to seek recognition of its own child welfare law from the federal and provincial governments.

But, he adds, given that the whole issue of self-government is unresolved, it’s uncertain what the result of any court action on that question would be.

On one hand, like O’Donnell, he says the Anishinabek Nation would have a case to make that child welfare is essential to its survival and therefore an inherent right. On the other hand, the provincial government could claim it had essentially extinguished aboriginal jurisdiction in that area by occupying it many years ago.

For now, Madahbee says the Anishinabek will try to make changes under the existing provincial law.

“Things have to be taken in steps,” he says, noting he will work with the provincial government on the issue. “If that doesn’t happen, we’re going to be implementing this anyway.”

With child welfare, questions remain about how effective aboriginal-run services have been. Bala says while keeping kids in their communities is laudable, it’s not always ideal in small places where there might not be enough appropriate foster families. Heritage should be one factor in determining the best interests of the child rather than the paramount one, he says.

At the same time, Morse says apprehension rates by aboriginal-run agencies have often been higher than those of provincial bodies. But while that casts a shadow on the whole notion of having separate laws and agencies, Morse argues the issue comes down to a lack of funding for aboriginal services by the federal government.

Nevertheless, Madahbee remains determined to carry out the Anishinabek project. Noting provincial agencies tend to identify aboriginal children in care as “client number so-and-so,” he’s vowing to change the system.

We need an external parallel traditional system set up separate to the current mandated Native Child and Family Services system. One that can take time with the whole issue of children and families and all the extended family relationships. The Metis People need their own systems recognized and supported to work with their members - they should have had the system similar to the First Nations instead of being excluded. How can we move ahead when there are so many gaps as is. Not everyone is on board as the way things stand and nothing is going to change - iired of hearing of the high numbers of children being placed in care - everyone has rights especially all the children so we adults should be making sure that the children come first and get a good system in place. The mandated agencies have a place in Ontario law - hard to blend prevention and protection under one roof-many people are scared to ask for services, scared to have their children removed.

To prevent the large number of Native children being taken into care how often is a homemaker being used as a lines of least intervention? Would someone please help me to find the statistics? It states in the Child and Family Service Act of Ontario that a homemaker can be placed by a mandated Child Welfare Agency has the authority to place a homemaker to prevent the children being removed from their homes for whatever reasons under the Child Welfare Act.

Everyone needs to be involved when raising a child and take whatever role they need to - for that child to have everything they are entitled to have in this world. There have been drastic changes in both worlds - the Aboriginal world including the Metis People and in Canada.and the world.

Student Aboriginal Governance

V2009-08-26 12:14

0

Before the First Nations develop new laws concerning children's lives and where they will live and grow up, they should really look at what resources are available to them now. Foster Parents, there isn't enough First Nation peoples whom are foster parents for the 10% of Native children ending up in foster care. Instead the First Nations can focus on developing agencies for the Native people whom are over the age of 18 who have health issues such as, anxiety and depression. A community is only as strong as the people are. the more healthier individuals are, the more healthier the community will be. There isn't enough center's that offer therapy, counselling, fitness training, etc. The First Nations who are deciding to do this need to really think of the consequences of this decision. Seriously.

lawyer

D. St. Jean2009-10-12 12:37

0

As a lawyer practicing Child Welfare in an area surrounded by aboriginal communities, I agree that First Nations and Aboriginal organizations must claim control over the administration of children's services for their own children. I applaud the Anishinabek for their acknolwedgment that their government and community leaders must focus on the needs of their children as the future of their community. Too often aboriginal children grow up believing that the system is against them and it is incumbent upon aboriginal political leaders to show their children that they have not forgotten them in the quest for continued government funding or other business ventures. Yes, they will make mistakes, but haven't enough "mistakes" been made against aboriginal children in the name of making aboriginal people "healthier individuals"? By whose standard? Certainly that must be defined by aboriginal people themselves.

DIGITAL EDITION

Sponsored Links

Law Times Poll

The federal government’s Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, proposes to reform the federal environmental assessment regime and place more emphasis on early engagement with affected communities. Do you and your clients support its aims?

Yes, I support the bill and think represents a fresh start for the federal environmental assessment process.

No, I'm concerned that the early engagement will lengthen the process and make things worse for clients.